Islam and Terrorism

I have recently found on Facebook the presence and message of Goldie Ghamari (inset above), a young Iranian woman determined to speak the truth about her native Iran and the Islamic Republic running it (or, as she would say, “occupying it”).  She describes herself as a “Juris Doctor, ex-politician, political analyst, human rights advocate”, one intent on “raising awareness on occupied Iran, Islamic Terrorism & Jihad”. 

One of her recent messages concerns the tepid, understated, and politically correct press conference announcement concerning the terrorist attack on Bondi Beach in Australia by the Australian police commissioner Krissy Barrett.  Ms. Barret said, “These are the alleged actions of those who have aligned themselves with a terrorist organization, not a religion.”  Ms. Ghamari who is quite familiar firsthand with the Middle East made the obvious reply that the actions of the terrorists were “100% motivated by religion”.  Ms. Ghamari is 100% correct.  

       It is true, of course, that not all Muslims are terrorists.  Indeed, many openly deplore the actions of such Islamic groups as ISIS and Boko Haram which are committed to violence against infidels in their determination to spread Islam.  Nonetheless, the amount of violence associated with Islam, both ancient and modern, does call for comment.  In particular it raises the question, “What is it about Islam that seems to provide such fertile soil for terrorism?”

       The question becomes sharper when Islam is compared to other world religions.  Obviously (and sadly) people of all religions wage war:  Christian England and Christian France waged war against each other for about a hundred years.  Irish insurgents intent upon driving the British out of Northern Ireland have resorted to terrorism.  But when one surveys the modern landscape, one cannot but be struck by the comparative absence of say, Christian terrorists, Jewish terrorists, Buddhist terrorists, Zoroastrian terrorists, and Shinto terrorists. In the modern day such terrorism and violence seem almost always to be found in Islam.

       As I said, there are moderate Muslims.  They seem to be found in western countries where they form a minority.  In Islamic countries where they are a majority and where Sharia law prevails, moderation withers and with it, tolerance of any other religion than Islam.  In those places apostasy from Islam is punishable by death and any public criticism of Muhammad is similarly and violently disallowed. 

One recalls the statement of Pope Benedict in 2006.  His Holiness quoted a written criticism of the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (d. 1425) in which the Emperor said to an educated Persian “show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as the command to spread the faith he preached by the sword”.  In other words, Muhammad borrowed most everything in Islam from Judaism and Christianity, the practice of jihad alone being original to him and Islam.  The reaction of Muslims everywhere to the Pope’s academic remarks was immediate violence and rioting worldwide— thereby unwittingly confirming the Pope’s view that violence was a part of Muhammad’s original message.

The fact that many Muslims did not riot is irrelevant to our question which is: “Why is Islam characterized by intolerance, repression, and violence more than the other world religions?” People in the West blaspheme against Christ but Christians do not respond with rioting and violence.

I suggest that the answer lies in their Qur’an.  The Qur’an is a very violent book, not just in the sense that it describes historical violence, but in the fact that it sacralizes violence and in fact commands it.  The happy fact that not all Muslims obey those commands is, I repeat, irrelevant, for Islam as a religion is defined not by the practice of peaceable (and westernized) Muslims so much as it is by its holy book. This is not just my view; it is the self-definition of Islam.  Islam defines itself by what is found in the Qur’an.  That is why when individual Muslims become “radicalized” (i.e. terrorists) they are not distorting the teaching of the Qur’an but simply following it.

For consider the following.

Regarding the duty of warfare/ jihad, the Qur’an says this: “God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers in return for the Garden— they fight in God’s way:  they kill and are killed— this is a true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. Who could be more faithful to his promise than God?   So be happy with the bargain you have made:  that is the supreme triumph” (Q.9:111).  Also Q. 8:15-16: “Believers, when you meet the disbelievers in battle, never turn your backs on them:  if anyone does that on such a day— unless manoeuvring to fight or to join a fighting group— he incurs the wrath of God, and Hell will be his home, a wretched destination!”  Thus also Q. 3:169-170:  “Do not think of those who have been killed in God’s way as dead. They are alive with their Lord, well provided for, happy with what God has given them of His favour; rejoicing that for those they have left behind who have yet to join them there is no fear, nor will they grieve.” 

Further, we find violence mandated in social situations— and, because the Qur’an is regarded as God’s pre-eternal Word for all cultures and times, no mitigation of the violent punishments can be allowed.  Consider the following.

For the crime of adultery or of fornication, both the partners were to be flogged with one hundred stripes (Q. 24:2). An unproven accusation of adultery in that honour-shame culture meant that the accuser who could not prove his accusation and who thus shamed others by the accusation was to be flogged with eighty stripes (Q. 24:4). The crime of theft was to be punished by cutting off both hands of the thief, whether the thief was male or female (Q. 5:38). Homosexuality was punishable by death, according to the ninth century collection of hadiths by Sunan Abu Dawud. 

It was not simply social crimes that were harshly punished, but offenses against Islam also. Thus blasphemy was punishable by death (Q. 9:74, 6:93), as was opposition to Muhammad:  “Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot, or banishment from the land:  a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter” (Q. 5:33).

Furthermore, the violence mandated against unbelievers in the regular raids is well known. Thus Q. 2:216:  “Fighting has been ordained for you, though it is hard for you. You may dislike something although it is good for you, or like something although it is bad for you.”  Thus Q. 8:39:  “Fight them until there is no more persecution and all worship is devoted to God alone”.  Thus Q. 8:60:  “Prepare against them [the unbelievers] whatever forces you can muster, including warhorses, to frighten off these enemies of God and yours.”    Thus Q. 9:5:  “When the forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post, but if they repent, maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way.”  Thus Q. 47:4:  “When you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike them on the neck”. 

(A further and detailed examination of Islamic origins and the content of the Qur’an can be found in my book Exploring Islam, available here for only $10.)

With such verses (many more could be added if the violence describing punishments in Hell were included) it is easy to understand the violence of the jihadists.  Their violence is not foreign or alien to their faith or their holy book but is an integral part of it. 

Compare all this with the teaching of the New Testament which counsels forgiveness and love for enemies and refusal to retaliate (e.g. Matthew 5:38f, 6:15, Romans 12:19-21, 13:9-10).  We note too that in its earliest centuries the Christian faith was spread throughout the Roman empire by martyrs who died (leading Tertullian famously to quip “The blood of the martyrs is seed” for the Church), while Islam was spread in its earliest centuries throughout the Roman Empire by soldiers who killed.  To repeat: we are not talking here about the subsequent history of Christianity or Islam but about the teaching of its sacred Books and the behaviour of its followers in the movements’ earliest and seminal times.

It is a mistake, therefore, to draw conclusions about Islam by the peaceable behaviour of some (or most?) of its adherents here in the West where they form a minority or even in places where Islam has been westernized and influenced by the classic values of a liberal democracy.  Our conclusions must be drawn from our observations of what the Qur’an actually teaches and of how Islam is practiced therefore in situations where Muslims form the majority and enforce Sharia law.  To refuse to do this from fear of offending sensibilities is hopelessly naïve. 

It is also a betrayal of those who to this day suffer and are killed under the Sharia law practised in Islamic countries.  Like the blood of Abel, their blood cries from the ground and it bids us open our eyes.  As Christians we are committed to love all men and to strive to convert all to Christ.  We must therefore love Muslims as we love everyone and bring to them the Gospel of eternal life.  But as we open our mouths to speak words of love and truth, we must keep our eyes open as well.  There are many fruits of the Spirit listed in the Scriptures.  But blindness, timidity, and cowardice are not among them.